Posted on

75. Liberation Theology, the Prodigal Daughter

February 28th, 2014

There was a time, only a few years ago, when the simple reference to “Liberation Theology” would cause many eyebrows to raise in the Vatican. Those times are now over. What was perceived and even publicly denounced as one of the most dangerous threats confronting the Roman Catholic Church is now seen as a legitimate, if not necessary, stream of its ever expanding life.

Liberation Theology As It Was Then

Liberation Theology was the title of a seminal book published in 1973 by Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez in which he advocated the idea that theology should be at the service of “integral” liberation, i.e. spiritual and economic freedom resulting in social justice. It was a new way of doing theology that would prioritize the people’s cries “from below” rather than the expectations of the ecclesiastical intellectual hierarchy “from above.” It would work its way bottom-up rather than top-down, and would consider the poor as the major theological player rather than the receiving end of decisions made by the rich, and would denounce as oppressive the capitalistic status quo that the Catholic Church would have instead assumed in Latin America. Other noted exponents are Leonardo and Clodoveo Boff of Brazil, Jon Sobrino of Spain, and Juan Luis Segundo of Uruguay.

Its critics associated Liberation Theology with Marxist ideology, materialistic anthropology, and revolutionary politics that would turn the traditional teaching and practice of the Church upside down. The Catholic Church strongly reacted against it. John Paul II, while paying lip service to some of the concerns expressed by Liberation Theology, was active in trying to silence it as much as he could. In the mid-Eighties his theological watchdog, Cardinal Ratzinger, then heading the Congregation for Sacred Doctrine, worked hard to limit its influence. Those days are now over. Why? Mutatis mutandis, has Liberation Theology changed its basic message or has the Church modified its stance? The latter seems to be the case.

Liberation Theology As It Is Now

Two substantial changes have made this shift possible. One, of course, is that since 2013 the Pope is Latin American. While it is not possible to classify Francis as a liberationist, he nonetheless shares a concern for the poor, an interest in the margins of the world and an appreciation of folk Catholicism. He simply does not seem to see Marxist categories working in and through what Liberation Theology tried to articulate. The “soft Gospel” of the Pope puts less emphasis on theological and ideological issues and in so doing he has significantly softened the controversy. The other change is that the present head of the Congregation for Sacred Docrine is Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller (since 2012), a German like Ratzinger, but, unlike his predecessor, a disciple and admirer of Gustavo Gutiérrez. Rome is now in the position of reassessing Liberation Theology even beyond past critical evaluations and disciplinary measures

Two recent books by Müller illustrate how the Vatican now views Liberation Theology from a completely different perspective. An der Seite der Armen: Theologie der Befreiung (On the Side of the Poor: Liberation Theology) is a 2004 German title that the Cardinal wrote with Gutiérrez himself. Povera per i poveri: La missione della chiesa (Poor for the poor: The mission of the Church) is a 2014 title that has just been published by the Vatican Press.

In these highly sophisticated books, Müller argues that Liberation Theology is a “regional” theology that finds her home in the “catholicity” of the Roman Church and stands in continuity with the classical theology of the church. It was preceded by the Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology) which predated Vatican II and was subsequently prepared by the theology of Karl Rahner. From Henri De Lubac Liberation Theology learned that grace works within nature and not from outside of it. From Rahner it embraced the idea that grace is already in nature and not something foreign to it. In Müller’s view, Liberation Theology is a regional application of what mainstream Catholic theology had already affirmed before and after Vatican II.

Liberation Theology is no longer viewed as being a pseudo-theology soaked in Marxist ideology, but is instead a fully recognized daughter of the Church which took seriously the re-orientation that Vatican II gave to Catholic theology and implemented it into the particular context of Latin America. This is the latest exercise of Roman catholicity whereby something that is in apparent conflict is instead seen as a part of the whole, i.e. the Roman Catholic synthesis.

Posted on

75. La Teología de la Liberación, la Hija Pródiga

08 DE MARZO DE 2014

Hubo un tiempo, hace sólo unos pocos años, cuando la simple referencia a la “Teología de la Liberación” hacía arquear muchas cejas en el Vaticano. Aquellos tiempos ya han pasado. Lo que se percibió e incluso se denunció públicamente como una de las más peligrosas amenazas a la que se enfrentaba la Iglesia Católica, se ve ahora como una legítima, por no decir también necesaria, corriente de su vida en constante expansión.

 La Teología de la Liberación como era entonces

 “La Teología de la Liberación”  es el título de un influyente libro publicado en 1973 por el teólogo peruano Gustavo Gutiérrez en el cual defendía la idea de que la teología debería estar al servicio de la liberación “integral”, es decir, la libertad económica y espiritual que surgiría como resultado de la justicia social. Era una nueva forma de hacer teología que priorizaría más el clamor de la gente “desde abajo”, que las expectativas de la jerarquía eclesiástica intelectual “desde arriba”. Haría su camino de abajo hacia arriba más bien que de arriba hacia abajo y consideraría a los pobres como el principal actor teológico antes que recibir el final de las decisiones tomadas por los ricos. También denunciaría como opresivo el  status quo  capitalista que en cambio la Iglesia Católica ha asumido en Latinoamérica. Otros destacados exponentes son Leonardo y Clodoveo Boff de Brasil, Jon Sobrino de España y Juan Luis Segundo de Uruguay.

Sus críticos relacionaron la Teología de la Liberación con la ideología marxista, la antropología materialista y la política revolucionaria, que cambiaría drásticamente la enseñanza y la práctica tradicionales de la Iglesia. La Iglesia Católica reaccionó enérgicamente contra la misma. Juan Pablo II, al tiempo que “de palabra” aparentaba estar de acuerdo con las inquietudes expresadas por la Teología de la Liberación, fue muy activo en tratar de silenciarla tanto como pudo. A mediados de la década de los ochenta su perro guardián teológico, el Cardenal Ratzinger, entonces a cargo de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, trabajó muy duro para limitar su influencia. Esos días se han acabado. ¿Por qué?  Mutatis mutandis , ¿la Teología de la Liberación ha cambiado su mensaje fundamental o la Iglesia ha modificado su postura? Lo último parece ser lo cierto.

 La Teología de la Liberación como es ahora

Dos variaciones sustanciales han hecho posible este cambio. Una es, por supuesto, que desde el año 2013 el Papa es latinoamericano. Si bien no se puede clasificar a Francisco como liberacionista, comparte, no obstante, la preocupación por los pobres, el interés por los límites del mundo y el reconocimiento del catolicismo popular. El, sencillamente, parece que no ve las categorías marxistas funcionando en y mediante lo que la Teología de la Liberación intentaba articular. El “Evangelio suave” del Papa pone menos énfasis en los temas ideológicos y teológicos y al hacerlo así ha suavizado significativamente la controversia. El otro cambio es que el actual dirigente de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe es el Cardenal Gerhard Ludwig Müller (desde 2012), alemán al igual que Ratzinger pero, a diferencia de su predecesor, discípulo y admirador de Gustavo Gutiérrez. Roma está ahora en la posición de valorar de nuevo la Teología de la Liberación, incluso más allá de las pasadas evaluaciones críticas y las medidas disciplinarias.

Dos libros recientes escritos por Müller ilustran la forma en que el Vaticano contempla ahora la Teología de la Liberación desde una perspectiva completamente diferente. “ An der Seite der Armen: Theologie der Befreiung”  (Del Lado de los Pobres: La Teología de la Liberación) es un título alemán que el Cardenal escribió en 2004 con el propio Gutiérrez. “ Povera per i poveri: La missione della chiesa”  (Pobres para los pobres: La misión de la Iglesia) es un título que acaba de publicarse en 2014 por la Vatican Press.

En estos libros tan sofisticados, Müller argumenta que la Teología de la Liberación es una teología “regional” que encuentra su hogar en la “catolicidad” de la Iglesia Romana y continúa con la teología clásica de la iglesia. Fue precedida por la  Nouvelle Théologie  (Nueva Teología) la cual antecedió al Vaticano II y con posterioridad fue preparada por la teología de Karl Rahner. Desde Henri De Lubac, la Teología de la Liberación aprendió que la gracia obra dentro de la naturaleza y no fuera de ella. Desde Rahner adoptó la idea de que la gracia se encuentra ya en la naturaleza y no es algo ajeno a la misma. Desde el punto de vista de Müller, la Teología de la Liberación es una aplicación regional de lo que la corriente principal de la teología católica había ya afirmado antes y después del Vaticano II.

La Teología de la Liberación ya no se considera como una pseudo teología empapada de la ideología marxista, sino una hija plenamente reconocida de la Iglesia que se tomó seriamente la reorientación que el Vaticano II dio a la teología católica y la puso en práctica en el contexto particular de Latinoamérica. Este es el último ejercicio de la catolicidad romana, por el cual algo que está en aparente conflicto es visto en su lugar como una parte del todo, o sea, la síntesis católico romana.

Posted on

74. The UN, the Vatican, and their Political and Theological Abuses

February 14th, 2014

The United Nations’ report on Vatican child protection efforts (5th February) has stirred many reactions on various fronts. In regard to the Catholic Church’s approach to dealing with cases of pedophilia, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has assessed the situation and pointed out some remaining areas of opacity in Vatican procedures concerning such matters. The Committee has also taken the opportunity to recommend certain changes in the ways in which the Catholic Church thinks of reproductive rights and education of sexuality. 

Fighting Abuses and Recommending Politically Correct Changes

For decades cases of pedophilia committed by Catholic priests have been reported without the Church authorities taking immediate action to stop such abuses, to protect the children involved, and to prevent further episodes. The general tendency has been to downplay the reports and safeguard the interests of the institution by trying to maintain the lowest profile possible. Instead of being transparent and honest, the Church has often practiced a self-defensive approach. It needs to be said that Cardinal Ratzinger, then Pope Benedict XVI, has worked hard to change the internal policies and that the attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy has varied from place to place, largely depending on the social control that the Church was able to exercise on society and the media.

The UN Committee now surveying the situation acknowledges the improvements and solicits a fully transparent policy against pedophilia. What is perhaps more striking, however, is what the report says beyond pedophilia. The UN document addresses areas such as reproductive rights and discrimination, abortion and contraception and sexuality in general. In recommending stronger actions against sexual abuses against children, it also encourages the Catholic Church to revise its teachings on various “sensible” ethical issues which belong to the traditional Christian moral vision. It criticizes the “conservative” stance on sexuality and pushes for more “progressive” views on life issues. A document that was intended to report on the state of affairs concerning pedophilia is instead become a proposal for re-working the moral teaching of the Church. Is this what a UN agency is meant to do?

Does the Church Need a “Holy See”?

Many observers have rightly criticized this ideological use of a UN report which intrudes on matters that belong to the moral sphere. Some have seen it as an attempt to impose a “politically correct” view on sex and reproductive freedom. Others have questioned the composition of the Committee which is largely influenced by representatives of NGOs that will fight for abortion on demand. All these concerns are matters of serious consideration. The document is more of a “culture war” text than a specific report on a certain issue. The pervasive role of the UN in promoting a secularist “single thought” is apparent. 

Having said all this, there is another fundamental question that is not being addressed, let alone asked by commentators. It is a question that goes beyond the specific contents of the report. Why on earth does the Roman Catholic Church need a “Holy See” for its mission? The Holy See is a sovereign state with full political and diplomatic authority, it’s a territory, an army, and a bank. The Pope is a political monarch. The Holy See is part of the United Nations as a nation among others. Of course, the Holy See is a child of a long historical process whereby the Roman Church in its central institution has developed a dual identity, i.e. a church and a state joined together.

Everyone is a child of its history, but the church should always be ready to change according to the Word of God and concerning things that are contrary to the will of its Master. Jesus Christ, the true head of the church, never intended the church to be a state and its pastors to be political kings. According to the Bible, Caesar and the magistrates have their legitimate authority. While living in the world of Caesar and the magistrates the church has a different calling, not to be confused nor overlapped with the former. While the UN abuses its power in commending a secularist agenda, the Holy See abuses its identity in being what its alleged Lord never wanted it to be. The UN needs to be questioned politically but the Vatican in its institutional outlook needs to be challenged theologically.

 

Posted on

74. La ONU, el Vaticano y sus abusos políticos y teológicos

22 DE FEBRERO DE 2014

El informe de las Naciones Unidas sobre los esfuerzos para la protección de la infancia que hace el Vaticano (5 de febrero) ha provocado muchas reacciones en varios frentes. En lo que se refiere al enfoque que da la Iglesia Católica al tratamiento de casos de pedofilia, el Comité de los Derechos del Niño de la ONU ha evaluado la situación y ha indicado que existen algunas áreas que todavía permanecen opacas en cuanto a los procedimientos del Vaticano en estos asuntos. El Comité también ha aprovechado la oportunidad para recomendar algunos cambios en las formas en que la Iglesia Católica concibe los derechos reproductivos y la educación sexual.

 Luchar contra los abusos y recomendar cambios políticamente correctos

Durante décadas los casos de pedofilia perpetrados por los sacerdotes católicos han sido conocidos sin que las autoridades de la Iglesia hayan tomado medidas inmediatas para detener tales abusos, con el fin de proteger a los niños implicados y prevenir episodios futuros. La tendencia general ha sido restar importancia a los informes y salvaguardar los intereses de la institución tratando de mantener el perfil más bajo posible. En lugar de ser transparente y honesta, la Iglesia ha practicado con frecuencia un planteamiento autodefensivo. Hay que decir que el Cardenal Ratzinger, entonces Papa Benedicto XVI, trabajó duro para cambiar las políticas internas y que la actitud de la jerarquía católico romana ha variado de un lugar a otro, dependiendo en gran medida del control social que la Iglesia era capaz de ejercer en la sociedad y en los medios de comunicación.

El Comité de la ONU que ahora está inspeccionando la situación reconoce que ha habido mejoras y solicita una política completamente transparente contra la pedofilia. Lo que quizás es más llamativo, no obstante, es lo que dice el informe más allá de la pedofilia. El documento de la ONU se orienta hacia áreas tales como los derechos reproductivos y la discriminación, el aborto y la anticoncepción y la sexualidad en general. Al recomendar acciones más contundentes contra los abusos sexuales perpetrados a los niños, también alienta a la Iglesia Católica a revisar sus enseñanzas acerca de varios temas éticos “sensatos” que pertenecen a la visión moral cristiana tradicional. Critica la actitud “conservadora” sobre la sexualidad y presiona para que tenga visiones más “progresivas” en algunos problemas de la vida. Un documento que iba destinado a informar sobre el estado de los asuntos concernientes a la pedofilia, se convertirá en su lugar en una propuesta de reelaboración de la enseñanza moral de la Iglesia. ¿Es esto lo que una agencia de la ONU tiene por objeto?

 ¿Necesita la Iglesia una “Santa Sede”?

Muchos observadores han criticado con razón este uso ideológico de un informe de la ONU que se inmiscuye en materias que pertenecen a la esfera moral. Algunos lo han visto como un intento de imponer un punto de vista “políticamente correcto” sobre el sexo y la libertad reproductiva. Otros han cuestionado la composición del Comité el cual está influenciado en gran medida por representantes de ONGs. que luchan por el aborto libre. Todas estas inquietudes son asuntos que merecen una seria consideración. El documento es más bien un texto de “guerra cultural” que un informe específico sobre un determinado tema. El papel dominante de la ONU en la promoción de un “pensamiento único” secularista es evidente.

Dicho todo esto, hay otra cuestión fundamental que no se aborda y mucho menos se pregunta por parte de los comentaristas. Es un asunto que va más allá de los contenidos concretos del informe. ¿Por qué motivos tiene necesidad la Iglesia Católico Romana de una “Santa Sede” para su misión? La Santa Sede es un estado soberano con plena autoridad política y diplomática, es un territorio, un ejército y un banco. El Papa es un monarca político. La Santa Sede forma parte de las  Naciones Unidas  como un país más entre los otros. Por supuesto, la Santa Sede es descendiente de un largo proceso histórico, por lo que la Iglesia Romana, como su institución central, ha desarrollado una identidad dual, es decir, una iglesia y un estado unidos.

Todo el mundo es hijo de su historia, pero la iglesia debería estar siempre preparada para cambiar conforme a la Palabra de Dios y con referencia a las cosas que son contrarias a la voluntad de su Maestro Jesucristo, la verdadera cabeza de la iglesia, la cual nunca tuvo la intención de ser un estado ni sus pastores reyes políticos. Según la Biblia, Cesar y los magistrados tenían su legítima autoridad. Cuando vive en el mundo de Cesar y los magistrados, la iglesia tiene un llamado diferente, o sea, no confundirse ni solaparse con los primeros. Mientras la ONU abusa de su poder al encomendar un programa secularista, la Santa Sede abusa de su identidad al ser lo que su supuesto Señor nunca quiso que fuera. La ONU tiene que cuestionarse políticamente, pero el Vaticano, en su panorama institucional, necesita ser desafiado teológicamente.

Posted on

73. Restoring Full and Visible Unity?

January 29th, 2014

“Has Christ been divided?” This is the question that Paul rhetorically asks to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:13), and this is also the question that Pope Francis commented upon in his homily at the end of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls in Rome. His brief meditation shows the passion that is a defining mark of the present pontificate, but it also restates important aspects of the traditional Roman Catholic view of unity that has been expounded since Vatican II.

A Given and a Goal

The first remark has to do with the understanding of unity as a “goal”. In commenting on the developments of the ecumenical movement, he speaks of “journeying together on the road towards unity,” implying the idea that unity stands ahead of us as if it were a goal to be eventually reached. Unity is therefore in the future tense. What does exactly unity mean here and why is it in the future tense? Later on, the Pope makes a comment that sheds light on these issues. He refers to the prospect of “restoration of full visible unity among all Christians” as the future climax of the ecumenical path. There is need, however, to unpack such a statement.

Firstly there is the idea of “restoration.” According to this view, there was a time in the life of the church when full and visible unity existed. It is not explicitly stated here, but what is perhaps referred to is the “undivided” First Millennium of the church before the East-West Schism (1054 AD) and the Protestant Reformation of the XVI century. This view is common in ecumenical circles but highly problematic from both historical and theological points of view. From its very early years and on, the church has constantly been dealing with inner divisions and conflicts, as the Pauline text testifies to. Before there was a Pope and even after the papacy came into existence, a “golden age” of Christian unity never existed, even within the Roman Catholic Church itself! Unity always stands in tension and under attack. Rather than restoring unity, the Bible urges us to “maintain” the already given unity (Ephesians 4:3) and to equip the body of Christ in order to “attain” the unity of faith (4:13). In other words, from the beginning of the church, unity is both a given and a goal. It is a gift and a task. The restoration model wrongly implies that unity was full in the first stages of the church and was then lost along the way, and now needs to be recovered. Christian unity is instead a given reality amongst those whom the Father has given to the Son (John 17:9) that must be protected and lived out.

Secondly, the Pope makes reference to a “full” and “visible” unity as the goal of ecumenism. According to the Roman Catholic view, “full” means sacramentally full, i.e. same baptism, same eucharist, same ministry. Given the self-understanding of the Roman Church, it means adhering and submitting to the sacramental theology of Rome and the hierarchical nature of its priesthood. “Visible” means that unity needs to accept the visible Papal structure of the Roman Catholic Church as the divinely appointed way for the One Church of Christ. The ecumenical price for full and visible unity is the acceptance of the Roman Catholic view of the Church. All other views are defective and, in the end, partial and invisible.

Prayer to Paul?

In closing his homily, Pope Francis reports that he had previously visited Paul’s tomb in the Basilica with other Christian leaders and they exhorted one another with these words: “Let us pray that he (Paul) will help us on this path as we advance towards unity”. Is Paul really the one to pray to for the advance of unity? Is he really in the position to help? Here again, another fundamental obstacle towards unity arises. According to the Pope, Paul can be prayed to, but the same Paul that taught us about unity was the one that wrote: “I bow my knees before the Father” (Ephesians 3:15). The restoration of Gospel purity and the keeping of Christian unity (as a gift and a task) belong together. Paul was the great apostle of the Gentiles and pointed out the Triune God as the model for our unity (Ephesians 4). We should not seek Paul’s help beyond what God inspired him to write in his letters.